Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mewa Singh vs State Of Punjab on 31 October, 2011
Author: Sabina
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Sabina
Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
(1) Criminal Appeal No. 738-SB of 2004
Date of Decision: 31.10.2011.
Mewa Singh .......Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab ......Respondent
(2) Criminal Appeal No. 343-DB of 2004
Sukhwinder Singh .......Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab ......Respondent
(3) Criminal Appeal No. 697-DB of 2011
Piara Singh .......Appellant
Vs.
Dharam Singh and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate
for the appellant.
(In Criminal Appeal No. 343-DB of 2004) and
for the respondents.
(In Criminal Appeal No. 697-DB of 2011)
Mr. S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate
for the appellant.
(In Criminal Appeal No. 738-SB of 2004)
None for the appellant.
(In Criminal Appeal No. 697-DB of 2011)
Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
.....
Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 2-
SABINA, J.
Vide this judgment, the above mentioned three appeals would be disposed of as they have arisen out of the same judgment.
Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the statement of complainant Piara Singh. On 17.5.2000, complainant made his statement before Kanwar Vijay Partap Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Gharinda that on the said date at about 9.00 A.M., he was present in his house along with his son Jaswinder Singh. Jagir Singh armed with 12 bore gun, Sukhwinder Singh alias Pohlu son of Jagir Singh armed with a gun, Narinder Singh son of Jagir Singh armed with wooden stick, Rajinder Singh son of Jagir Singh armed with sword, Dharam Singh armed with spear, Sukhchain Singh son of Dharam Singh armed with 12 bore gun, Major Singh and Punjab Singh sons of Dharam Singh armed with spears, Mewa Singh and Balkar Singh armed with sticks came to his house. The said persons asked the complainant to leave the possession of the land. They further said that they would teach him a lesson for ploughing the land and started abusing him. In the meantime, Satnam Singh, Jagtar Singh, Swaran Singh, Palwinder Singh, Amarjit Singh, Kuldip Singh and Harjit Singh, who were working in their fields, rushed to the spot. Kuldeep Singh Lambardar said to the accused party that they were wrong. On this, Sukhchain Singh got angry and fired from his gun at Amarjit Singh saying that he was always interfering in their works. Amarjit Singh fell down. Harjit Singh came forward to lift Amarjit Singh. Sukhwinder Singh fired from his gun at Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 3- Harjit Singh. When Kuldip Singh rushed forward, Jagir Singh fired at Kuldip Singh from his gun. The pallets hit Kuldip Singh, Satnam Singh, Swaran Singh, Balkar Singh, Jagtar Singh and Palwinder Singh. They raised alarm "killed killed". Thereafter, all the accused fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. The cause of grudge was that the complainant had been ploughing the land for the last 30 years. Sukhchain Singh had already got the land redeemed from Vir Kaur. Litigation in this case was pending between both the parties. Rajinder had also caused hurt to Gurnam Singh who was supporting the complainant party. The villagers got the injured admitted in the hospital after making arrangements for the transport.
On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR No. 56 dated 17.5.2000 was registered at Police Station Gharinda under Section 302, 307, 449, 506, 147, 148, 149, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 ('Act' for short).
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against accused.
During the pendency of the trial, injured Harjit Singh died on 16.7.2001. Thereafter, amended charge sheet was prepared.
After the close of prosecution evidence, the accused when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in the case. The accused had also stated that they would file written replies but admittedly no such written replies were filed by the accused.
The accused examined DW-1 Mohinder Kaur in their Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 4- defence.
The trial court vide judgment dated 04.3.2004 convicted accused Sukhchain Singh for an offence under Section 302 IPC for commission of murder of Amarjit Singh. Accused Sukhwinder Singh was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC for commission of murder of Harjit Singh. Accused Jagir Singh was convicted for an offence under Section 307 IPC for the murderous assault on Kuldip Singh and other injured. Accused Sukhchain Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and Jagir Singh were also convicted for an offence under Section 27 of the Act. All the accused were convicted for an offence under Section 144 IPC. Vide order of the even date, all the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 144 IPC. Accused Sukhchain Singh was further ordered to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of ` 2,000/- for offence under Section 302 IPC. Sukhwinder Singh was also ordered to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of ` 2,000/- for offence under Section 302 IPC. Jagir Singh was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of ` 1,000/- for offence under Section 307 IPC. Sukhchain Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and Jagir Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 27 of the Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the present appeal by accused Sukhwinder Singh, Mewa Singh and complainant Piara Singh.
Accused Sukhchain Singh had also filed Criminal Appeal No. 413-DB of 2004 challenging his conviction and sentence but the same was disposed of having been abated on account of his death. It has also been brought to our notice that Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 5- Dharam Singh accused has died during the pendency of the appeal filed by the complainant against him.
Learned counsel for appellants Mewa Singh and Sukhwinder Singh and respondents in appeal filed by the complainant have submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. The accused had been falsely involved in the case due to pendency of civil litigation between the complainant and the accused party. Mewa Singh appellant was not related to the accused. No recovery of gun was effected from appellant Sukhwinder Singh during investigation. In fact a gun was recovered from Sona Singh and it was the case of the prosecution that the same had been used by Sukhwinder Singh at the time of the occurrence. The empties which had been recovered from the spot had not been sent for any expert opinion to substantiate the prosecution case that the shots had been fired by the accused from the guns alleged to have been recovered from them during investigation. Harjit Singh had died after one year and two months of the occurrence and hence, it could not be inferred that appellant Sukhwinder Singh had any intention to commit his murder.
Learned state counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. The presence of injured witnesses could not be doubted at the spot. All the injured witnesses, except injured Swaran Singh, had supported the prosecution case and had deposed qua the manner of occurrence. The accused had come to the spot armed with deadly weapons and had caused fire arm injures to the complainant party. Amarjit Singh and Harjit Singh had died due to fire arm injuries suffered by them in the occurrence. In Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 6- fact all the accused were liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 302/307 IPC.
Medical Evidence:-
PW-3 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai deposed that on 18.5.2000 at 11.00 A.M., he had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Amarjit Singh and had found following injuries on his person:-
1. Lacerated wound 0.5 x 0.3 cm on left side of front of chest on the mid clavicular region.
Clotted blood was present.
2. 0.3 cm circulars lacerated wound on front of left shoulder. Clotted blood was present.
3. Two lacerated wound 0.3 x 0.2 cm and 0.4 x 0.3 cm on front of left side of chest at 5 O clock and 6 O clock position. Clotted blood present.
4. Three lacerated wound present on right side of front of chest 0.4 x 0.3 cm to 0.3 x 0.2 cm in size in the supra memory region, clotted blood was present.
5. Lacerated wound 0.4 x 0.3 cm on right side of neck .6 cm above sternal notch, clotted blood was present.
6. Lacerated wound 0.5x0.4 cm with bluish bruise around the wound present on front of right upper arm in its upper 1/3, clotted blood was present.
7. 0.5 x 0.4 cm lacerated wound present on back of right forearm in its upper 1/3 clotted blood was present.
Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 7-
8. Two lacerated wound 0.5 x 0.4 cm and 0.4 x 0.3 cm on right hypogastic region of abdomen 18 cm and 16 cm from umblicus at 10 o clock position. Clotted blood was present.
9. Lacerated wound 0.6 x 0.4 cm with bluish bruise on front of left upper arm in its lower 1/3. Clotted blood was present.
10. Raddish brown abrasion 1 x 0.3 cm on back of left forearm in its upper 1/3. Clotted blood present.
11. Two lacerated wound 0.3x0.2 cm present on back of left fore arm in its upper 1/3 clotted blood present.
12. Three lacerated wound 0.5 x 0.3 cm to 0.3 to 0.2 cm in size present on front of left forearm in its lower 1/3 clotted blood present.
13. Three lacerated wound 0.3 x 0.2 cm to 0.4 to 0.3 cm in size present on frong to left forearm in its upper 1/3. Clotted blood present.
14. Lacerated wound 0.6 x 0.5 cm was present on right side of forehead 4 cm above middle of eyebrow, clotted blood was present, it was scalp deep.
15. Lacerated wound 0.7 x 0.3 cm was present on outer and of left eyebrow, clotted blood was present, it was scalp deep.
All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were caused by shot gun fire except injury No. 10. The cause of death Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 8- in this case was hemorrhage and shock, as a result of injuries to vital organs i.e. both lungs, liver and carotid vessels due to injury Nos. 1, 2, 3 to 5 and 8 which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
He further deposed that on 16.7.2001 at 4.00 P.M. he he had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Harjit Singh. The deceased was admitted in Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar on 17.5.2000 and was shifted to Madan Hospital, Amritsar and remained admitted there from 18.5.2000 to 24.5.2000. The patient was discharged at his own request. He had died because of fire arm injuries on 16.7.2001 at 6.00 A.M. as per the inquest report. He further deposed as under:-
"As per the bed head ticket, patient was admitted with multiple pellet injury and head injury and was unconscious and had high grade fever. CT scan examination and X-ray examination and MRI examination showed multiple radio opaque shadows (Pellets) in the X-ray film of chest, skull and limbs and CT scan of brain was having haemorragio infracts incerible areas of brain stem. Injury was involving pons area of brain. Patient was treated for these injuries. He remained unconscious and was put on ventilator with tracheostomy and was having high grade fever upto 2.6.2000. He was given 10 units of blood transfusion from 22.5.2000 to 4.9.2000. (Objected to being not the observation of the doctor. Objection kept opened to be decided at the time of arguments). Treachostomy fistula developed on 27.6.2000 and gestrostomy was done Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 9- to the patient on 30.6.2000. Laryngoscopy and bronchococy was done on 22.8.2000 since the patient developed bronchospism."
He further deposed that the patient was taken home with the consent of the doctor as the relatives of the deceased were facing economic problems. Till date the treatment was being taken from Dr. A.S.Randhawa Neuro Surgeon. He had found following injuries on his person:-
1. Multiple depressed scar 0.5 x 0.4 cm to 0.4 x 0.3 cm in size on front of right upper arm(4) right should to and front of right side of chest (5).
2. Multiple depressed scars four in number with size varing from 5 x 0.4 on front of left side of chest.
3. Two depressed scars 0.44 circular were present on front of right thigh and right foot.
4. Four depressed scars were present on right side of face, nose, chin and forehead. One metalic was removed from forehead and sealed.
5. One depressed scar 0.4 cm in size was present on front of left thigh.
6. On dissection of skull, a dark brown colour fibrus and encapsulated sub-dural haematoma was present on left ceriberal hemi-sphere on its mis-cerberal and posterior cerebral area and in the right cerebrum 6 x 3 cm and 5 x 4 cm in size.
A brown colour haematoma was also present in the posterior cerebral area of right side. Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 10- The witness further deposed that on going through the bed head ticked, x-ray reports, MRI reports and autopsy findings, he was of the opinion that all the injuries were present in the form of scars and haematoma and were ante-mortem in nature. On police request Ex.PU, he gave his opinion that patient had remained in comma as a result of fire arm injuries as per bed head tickets of Madan Hospital, Amritsar and Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar and statements of the relatives of deceased. The possibility of the patient going into comma after receipt of fire arm injuries could not be ruled out. The possibility of comma leading to malnutrition and death due to improper intake of diet could not be ruled out. A person lying in comma could suffer various complications despite best medical treatment as the patient is always bed ridden. He had also given opinion Ex. PV/1 on police application Ex. PV that at the time of admission to the hospital patient was having fever and was in an unconscious state and had remained in a vegetative state throughout his survival period. The cause of death in this case was malnutrition and respiratory failure.
PW-4 Dr. Amarjit Singh deposed that on 18.5.2000 at 2.40 P.M., he medico legally examined Swaran Singh and had found following injuries on his person:-
1. 0.3 x 0.2 cm lacerated wound present on back of right leg, 9 cm above mid of medial malleolus.
Margins found irregular with reddish brown scab formation around the wound.
2. 0.4 x 0.3 cm lacerated wound present on outer aspect of left leg, 11.5 cm below tibial tuberosity. Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 11- Margins found irregular with reddish brown scab formation around the wound.
3. 0.4 x 0.3 cm lacerated wound present on outer aspect of leg, 5.8 cm below injury No.2. Margin found irregular with reddish brown scab formation around the wound.
In his opinion the injuries were simple in nature and weapon used was a fire arm.
On the same day at 3.00 P.M., he medico legally examined Satnam Singh and had found following injuries on his person:-
1. 0.4 x 0.3 cm lacerated wound present on medial aspect of right leg, 5.5 cm above mid of medial malleolus. Margins found irregular with reddish brown scab formation around the wound.
2. 0.6 x 0.3 cm lacerated wound present on back of right leg, 18 cm above injury No.1. Margins found irregular with reddish brown scab formation around the wound.
3. 0.4 x 0.3 cm lacerated wound present on the back of right leg, 10 cm above injury No.2.
Margins found irregular with reddish brown scab formation around the wound.
All the injuries were simple in nature and weapon used was a fire arm.
PW-22 Dr. Guriqbal Singh deposed that on 17.5.2000 at 11.15 A.M, he medico legally examined Kuldip Singh and had found following injuries on his person:-
Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 12-
1. 0.5 cm circular lacerated wound on the front of forehead 1.5 cm above medial end of left eyebrow. Margins were everted. Clotted blood was present and on examination, on removing the clot fresh blood oozed out.
2. 0.5 cm in diameter circular lacerated wound on left alae of nose, 2.8 cm left to the tip of nose.
Margins were everted. Clotted blood was present and on removing the clot, fresh blood oozed out.
3. 0.5 cm in diameter circular lacerated wound on left side of fore-head, 2 cm lateral to outer end of left eye brow. Clotted blood was present. Margins were everted and on removing the clot, fresh blood oozed out.
4. 0.5 x 0.4 cm lacerated wound on left side of neck, 6 cm below left ear lobule.
On receipt of x-ray report, he gave his opinion that all the injuries were simple in nature and were caused by smooth bore fire arm weapon.
On the same day at 11.30 A.M., he medico legally examined Palwinder Singh and had found following injuries on his person:-
1. 1 x 0.3 cm lacerated wound on back of right leg, 27 cm above heal. Margins were averted. Clotted blood was present. On removing the clot fresh blood oozed out.
2. 0.4 cm in diameter circular lacerater wound on front of middle of trunk on right side 14.5 cm Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 13-
below right nipple at 7 O' clock position. Margins were everted, clotted blood was present and on removing the clot, fresh blood oozed out. Surrounding area was hyperemic.
On receipt of x-ray report, he gave his opinion that both the injuries were simple in nature and had been caused with blunt weapon.
On 18.5.2000 at 10.00 A.M., he medico legally examined Piara Singh and had found following injury on his person:-
1. 0.5 x 0.4 cm lacerated wound on left side of neck, 14 cm below left ear lobule. Margins were everted. Clotted blood was present and the margins were red, swollen and tender.
On receipt of x-ray report, he gave his opinion that the injury was simple in nature and the weapon used was smooth bore fire arm weapon.
On the same day at 10.05 A.M., he medico legally examined Jaswinder Singh and had found following injuries on his person:-
1. 0.5 x 0.4 cm lacerated wound on lateral aspect of left root, 1 cm below lateral maleolus. Margins were inverted. Clotted blood was present and the margins were red, swollen and tender.
2. 2 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound on left side of fore-head 3 cm above lateral and of left eye brow. Clotted blood was present. Margins were red, swollen and tender.
Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 14- On receipt of x-ray report, he gave his opinion that the injuries were simple in nature and had been caused by smooth bore fire arm weapon.
On the same day at 10.15 A.M., he medico legally examined Jagtar Singh and had found following injuries on his person:-
1. 0.5 x 0.4 cm lacerated wound on leftr side of head, 3 cm above and behind top of left ear.
Clotted blood was present. Margins were everted, red and swollen.
2. 0.5 x 0.4 cm lacerated wound on left side of back of chest, 3 cm lateral to medial border of scapular, almost in its middle. Clotted was present. Margins were red, swollen and inverted.
3. 0.5 x 0.4 cm lacerated wound on left side of back of chest, 13 cm lateral to mid line and 1 cm below lower border of left scapular. Margins were everted, red and swollen.
4. 0.5 x 0.3 cm lacerated wound on back of left upper arm, 26 cm above elbow prominance.
Margins were everrted, red and swollen and clotted blood was present.
5. 0.5 x 0.4 cm lacerated wound on back of left buttock region, 5 cm below iliac crest. Margins were investted, red and swollen.
On receipt of x-ray report, he gave his opinion that all the injuries were simple in nature and had been caused by smooth bore fire arm weapon.
Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 15- PW-5 Dr. Ramandip Kaur proved the x-ray reports qua injured Kuldip Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Piara Singh, Satnam Singh, Swaran Singh, Palwinder Singh and Jagtar Singh.
PW-10 Dr.Yashpal Sharma deposed that on 17.5.2000 he had declared injured Swaran Singh and Satnam Singh fit to make statement on police application.
PW-11 Dr. Ajay Gupta deposed that on 17.5.2000 Kuldip Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Jagtar Singh, Harjit Singh and Piara Singh were admitted in the hospital. On police request, he had declared all the injured except Harjit Singh, fit to make the statement.
PW-15 Dr. Gulshan Sharma deposed that on 23.5.2000 and 27.6.2000 he had declared Harjit Singh unfit to make a statement on a police request.
PW-18 Dr. Narinder Mohan Rajput deposed that on 17.7.2000 he was working in Madan Hospital, Amritsar where Harjit Singh was admitted for treatment. He had declared the patient unfit to make the statement on police request.
PW-19 Dr. Anurag Julka deposed that on 5.8.2000 he was working as a Resident Medical Officer with Madan Hospital, Amritsar. Harjit Singh was admitted in the said hospital. On police request, he had declared the patient unfit to make the statement.
Ocular Version:-
Complainant Piara Singh, while appearing in the witness box as PW-1, deposed as per the contents of the FIR.
PW-2 Swaran Singh corroborated the statement of PW-1 in his examination in chief and his cross examination was deferred on the request of the defence counsel. However, Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 16- thereafter, he did not support the prosecution case.
PW-6 injured Satnam Singh, PW-7 injured Jaswinder Singh and PW-9 injured Kuldip Singh have corroborated the statement of PW-1 qua the manner of occurrence. Investigation:-
PW-16 Kanwar Vijay Partap Singh deposed that on 17.5.2000, he was working as Station House Officer, Police Station Gharinda. On receipt of information qua the firing incident in village Cheecha, he reached the spot. There he came to know that injured had been removed to the hospital at Amritsar. He left Sub Inspector Gurmej Singh at the spot and reached the hospital. He recorded the statement of injured Piara Singh, after he was declared fit to make the statement by the doctor. On the basis of the same, formal FIR was registered. He also recorded the statements of other injured Jaswinder Singh, Jagtar Singh, Palwinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh, after they were declared fit to make the statements by the doctor. He conducted the inquest proceedings qua the dead body of Amarjit Singh. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. On reaching the place of occurrence, he prepared rough site plan and took three empty cartridges of 12 bore in possession from the spot. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot. On 18.5.2000, he went to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital along with SI Gurmej Singh and other police officials. He took in possession the sealed parcel of the clothes of the deceased. He moved an application seeking opinion qua injured Harjit Singh but he was again declared unfit to make a statement. He took in possession the medical legal reports of the injured. On 23.5.2000, injured Harjit Singh was again declared unfit to make Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 17-
a statement. Accused Major Singh and Punjab Singh surrendered before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. Accused Dharam Singh and Sukhchain Singh were arrested on 23.5.2000. One spear was recovered from Dharam Singh and was taken in possession. Sukhchain Singh, during interrogation, suffered a disclosure statement and got recovered one 12 bore rife along with one empty cartridge and one live cartridge from the disclosed place and the same were taken in possession. On 25.7.2000, Punjab Singh accused during interrogation suffered a disclosure statement and got recovered a spear from the disclosed place and the same was taken in possession. Accused Major Singh also suffered a disclosure statement during interrogation and got recovered one spear from the disclosed place and the same was taken in possession. Mohinder Singh and Balkar Singh accused were arrested on 29.5.2000. Rajinder Singh accused was arrested on 31.5.2000 and one kirpan was recovered from his possession. Accused Sukhwinder Singh was arrested on 01.6.2000. On 03.6.2000, he arrested accused Jagir Singh. He also searched for accused Kulwant Singh and during search one SBBL gun was recovered from his house.
PW-21 Sub Inspector Nihal Singh deposed that he took over the investigation of the case on 05.6.2000. On 27.6.2000, he moved an application seeking opinion qua fitness of injured Harjit Singh and the doctor declared him unfit to make a statement. He collected x-ray reports from the hospital qua the injured on 04.7.2000. Karaj Singh accused was produced before him. He was arrested and DBBL gun was recovered from him and the same was taken in possession along with licence. On Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 18- 07.7.2000, he arrested accused Mewa Singh. Documents qua civil litigation between the parties were taken in possession. On 17.7.2000, he again moved an application seeking opinion qua injured Harjit Singh and he was declared unfit to make a statement. On 07.8.2000, he arrested accused Sona Singh. One double barrel gun along with three live cartridges and one licence were recovered from him. On 05.8.2000, injured Harjit Singh was again declared unfit to make a statement on his (written) request. After completion of investigation, he prepared the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Defence:-
DW-1 Mohinder Kaur proved Ex. DW-1/A copy of the sale certificate.
Discussion:-
It is a case of double murder and rests on an eye witness account. The complainant as well as the other injured witnesses had suffered injuries in the alleged occurrence. The presence of the said witnesses at the spot, thus, cannot be doubted. PW-1 Piara Singh, PW-6 Satnam Singh, PW-7 Jaswinder Singh and PW-9 Kuldip Singh have duly proved the prosecution case qua the manner of occurrence. PW-2 Swaran Singh did not support the prosecution case in his cross examination as it was deferred on the request of the learned defence counsel. The said witness had duly supported the prosecution case in his examination in chief and had apparently been won over by the accused after the case was adjourned for his cross examination. However, the prosecution case qua the manner of occurrence is duly proved by PW-1 Piara Singh, PW-6 Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 19- Satnam Singh, PW-7 Jaswinder Singh and PW-9 Kuldip Singh. The testimonies of the said witnesses qua ocular version are duly corroborated by the medical opinion on record. The eye witnesses have deposed that Sukhchain Singh had fired from his double barrel gun on the person of Amarjit Singh. As per the medical opinion, Amarjit Singh had died due to fire arm injuries suffered by him. So far as the other injured are concerned, the medical opinion corroborates the ocular version that they had suffered fire arm injures on account of shot fired by Jagir Singh.
It is also the case of prosecution that Harjit Singh had also suffered fire arm injuries in the occurrence which had taken place on 17.5.2000. However, the said injured had died on 16.7.2001. From the evidence on record, it is apparent that Harjit Singh injured had remained in comma till his death on account of injuries suffered by him. On various occasions, opinion was sought by the investigating agency from the doctors and injured Harjit Singh was declared unfit to make a statement.
Although the initial medico legal report qua injured Harjit Singh has not been proved on record but PW-3 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai has given his opinion after going through the medical record of the deceased Harjit Singh. Moreover, PW-11 Dr. Ajay Gupta deposed that Harjit Singh was admitted in their hospital on 17.5.2000 and the said patient was declared unfit to make a statement. The other doctors, who had given treatment to injured Harjit Singh, have also deposed that the patient was declared unfit to make a statement by them. Thus, from the ocular as well as medical evidence on record it is evident that Harjit Singh had died due to the fire arm injuries suffered by him at the hands of Sukhwinder Singh. Harjit Singh had remained in comma till his Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 20- death.
Although, in the present case the three empties recovered from the spot were not sent to the expert for examination but that in itself would not be fatal to the prosecution case. The complainant party cannot be made to suffer on account of lapse committed by the investigating agency. The ocular version and the medical evidence are trustworthy and prosecution case is duly established from the said evidence.
Admittedly, there was civil litigation between the parties. All the accused had come to the spot armed with weapons with a view to take forcible possession of the land in question. The trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the accused had not come to the spot with a common object to cause injuries to Piara Singh and others. Rather, they had merely come to the spot to compel Piara Singh to leave possession of the land. It is on the spur of the moment that accused Sukhchain Singh fired from his gun at Amarjit Singh who died at the spot. Accused Sukhwinder Singh fired from his gun at Harjit Singh who succumbed to his injuries after one year and two months of the occurrence. Accused Jagir Singh fired at Kuldip Singh and the pallets hit Kuldip Singh, Satnam Singh, Swaran Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Palwinder Singh and Jagtar Singh. Hence, the trial court rightly held that all the accused were guilty of an offence under Section 144 IPC and accused Sukhwinder Singh was guilty of an offence under Section 302 IPC and accused Jagir Singh was guilty of an offence under Section 307 IPC. The trial court further rightly come to the conclusion that accused Sukhwinder Singh and Jagir Singh were also guilty of an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Crl. Appeals No. 738-SB of 2004, 343-DB of 2004 & 697-DB of 2011 - 21- There is also no force in the argument raised by learned counsel for appellant Sukhwinder Singh that he was liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 304 IPC as he had no intention to commit the murder of Harjit Singh. This argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to find favour with us. Appellant Sukhwinder Singh had fired from his gun at Harjit Singh. The said fact is sufficient to infer that he had the intention to commit murder of the deceased. Merely because the deceased had died after one year and two months of the occurrence, would not lead to the inference that appellant Sukhwinder Singh had no intention to commit the murder of deceased Harjit Singh. Deceased Harjit Singh had remained in comma till his death on account of fire arm injuries suffered by him.
Accordingly, all the three appeals are dismissed.
(JASBIR SINGH) (SABINA)
JUDGE JUDGE
October 31, 2011
Gurpreet